Situatedness in architecture
It seems obvious that a building should relate to its immediate environment - morphologically, geometrically, symbolically and probably in many other ways. Yet at the same time architecture is full of concepts and ideas that have proved to be quite portable: classical temples have been built in the same way all over the ancient world; Palladian villas were transported from northeast Italy to England and beyond; modernist designs have been repeated with little variation in several continents. Is situatedness in architecture a myth? Or is this yet another example of stubborn demarcation in architectural theorising? Why should it be either this or that? There are many reasons for combining and mixing, both practical and cultural. Once again I fear the value judgements are hastily attached to descriptive analyses to either praise or dismiss without any grounded arguments.
No comments:
Post a Comment